Library

Friday, 14 May 2010

The real "disgrace"

Strong words from David Bowles in the Daily Post yesterday as he "slammed the leaking of a private warning to councillors about their conduct" on the Druid site. He goes on to say that leaking information of this kind is a "disgrace".

If I may reply to Mr Bowles: what is really a 'disgrace' is not the leaking of information but Anglesey County Council's obstructive behaviour in responding to perfectly valid Freedom of Information requests. On Tuesday this week I posted on an instance of the IOACC failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by issuing neither the information requested (in this case Mr Bowles's salary) or a refusal notice within the statutory 20 day period. In fact the applicant is still waiting for a response after more than 50 days. And this is not the only such occurrence. The Druid happens to know for a fact that the officer in charge of Corporate Information at the IOACC has sent a memo to all council managers warning them of the need to keep a tight control on responding to FoIA requests properly and on time as he fears that an increasing number of complaints might bring a costly full investigation by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). This site for one will strongly lobby the ICO to make such an investigation if the IOACC continues to ignore its duties by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

It must be said that the Druid has great respect for David Bowles' biography. He was named Private Eye's "Man of the Year" in 2004 - no mean feat - for calling in the Police when he learned that the Leader of Lincolnshire Council had tried to influence the route of new bypass in order increase the value of his land. For his efforts Bowles was effectively hounded out of office. Following that he was forced to quit his new position as Chairman of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust for standing up to New Labour's obsessions with targets - which he claimed jeopardised the safety of patients. I wonder what the David Bowles of 2004 would think of the David Bowles of 2010 making such strenuous efforts to avoid revealing his taxpayer funded salary…?

Before we go further, and as I have said previously I agree with the Druid that we should be told what the Chief Executive pay is, can I suggest that if Mr Bowles is employed by Solace Enterprise, they may have instructed him not to disclose the amount of monies they pay him. So lets not be quick to blame him. My comments are pure speculation of course, but please can I ask if you are to defame someone's reputation its based on more concrete evidence than pure speculation and idle gossip.

Stats man - as previously reported we pretty much know for a fact that IOACC have a confidentiality clause with SOLACE. However, with even the President of SOLACE saying that Council Chiefs should reveal their salary (http://www.solace.org.uk/news_articles.asp?archive=n&id=89) I therefore don't see why IOACC should respect a confidentiality clause when it is anyway contrary to their obligations respect to Freedom of Information Act.

So that's Solace Enterprise and the Council then, not really sure what Mr Bowles has done wrong, are we asking him to break his contract of employment (based on an assumption as there is a confidentiality clause with Council, Solace would have also inserted one into Mr Bowles Contract). The hypocrite's are Solace Enterprise demanding confidentiality (if true), when the President of Solace (as I pointed out in an earlier comment) says the public should be told the Chief Executive pay.

Stats man - A good observation. Even so, it would be possible for DB to reveal his salary without disclosing what profit SOLACE takes in return. The point returns to this: the MD of the Council is paid from taxpayers money; as taxpayers we have a right to know the salaries of senior public servants paid from tax money - particularly when at the same time IAOCC is introducing one of largest council tax rises in the UK whilst simultaneously reducing services. Was IOACC given proper legal advice in signing a contract with SOLACE which includes a confidentiality clause which prevents them from disclosing the MD's salary - even when presented with a valid FoI request?

This story is abpout the £305,000 being used from the council's general fund to provide for the early retirement of secondary school teachers, as "the Education Service reserves have been whittled down with the level not sufficient to allow the department to fund voluntary departures."

To Prometheuswrites I also have seen the report in the Daily Post this morning, but am somewhat confused (with Daily Post report). As far as I understood costs of early voluntary retirement had to be borne from individual departments budgets. If there is no budget, then unless absolutely necessary there should be no early voluntary retirement where council has to make additional contribution to pension payments.

To Druid depends - what was imposed on them (Ynys Môn council) by the Welsh Assembly when Mr Bowles was appointed by the Local Government Secretary ?

Stats man - I can tell you exactly as the FoI applicant also petitioned the Local Government minister at the Welsh Assembly and received this reply yesterday:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31355774/WAG-Letter-Redacted

The important part is this:

"On July 15th, the Auditor General for Wales published a highly critical report on the corporate governance of the Isle of Anglesey County Council. He identified key weaknesses in political behaviour, strategic planning and public engagement, and recommended that the Welsh Assembly intervene to secure recovery. The then Minister for Social Justice and Local Government agreed, and issued the Isle of Anglesey County Council with a formal direction on August 12th.

"As part of the direction the Minister prevented the Council from exercising its power to appoint a head of paid service / managing director for a period of two years. Instead, the Minister appointed David Bowles to the post.

"However, Mr Bowles is an employee of the Isle of Anglesey County Council and paid by them. Negotiating the levels of remuneration and other aspects of appointment, along with the payments of remuneration itself are matters between Mr Bowles and the Council. The Welsh Assembly Government was not involved in those negotiations and therefore does not hold any information on these matters or any power to investigate them."

Therefore all salary negotiations and contract details were between IOACC and SOLACE - and did not involved WAG at all. One could argue that as IOACC were told that they must employ DB they had their hands tied when it came to negotiating the fee, but even so there was nothing to prevent them striking out a morally doubtful confidentiality clause when DB's salary was bound to rightly provoke FoI requests.

To Druid, Yes quite a strange message from Welsh Assembly - they have powers to stop a Council appointing a Chief Executive, and impose their choice on a Council, but no powers to find out what the candidate they imposed on the Council is being paid. Good political answer from WA. Is the 2 years up soon ?

Returning to my original point, I agree we should know what the Chief Executive is being paid, but in respect of Mr Bowles it may be that personally he cannot tell us due to his contract. I don't know this it's mere speculation on my part. If there is no restriction then I agree Mr Bowles should tell us. And if there is a restriction those who imposed it should have it rescinded.

RE: confidentiality. The Council can enter into any contractual arrangements it likes. But that does not mean those contracts allow them to evade statute law - such as FoIA 2000. At the moment, the Council have no declared their hand, as they have not replied in substance, nor stated if they are refusing to require more time to consider the public interest test, nor whether they are refusing completely (possible under certain specified circumstances).

The point here is that the position occupied by Bowles is a public position, and one that is statutorily required for all councils. So ask yourself: why would a public position, funded by you and me, need a secrecy clause? The Council and Solace have simply been naive, it seems to me, to think that signing a contract meant they'd never have to reveal the salary.

As for defamation, there is none. We neither aim to do so nor do so. We are reporting true facts or fair comment.

Is it just me, or is Bowles now heavily immersed in the kind of petty personality politics and mud-slinging that he is meant to be here (at great expense, no matter what the exact figure) to sort out?

Time to start thinking about the next contract, Mr. Bowles...

Another point of disgrace: that Solace Enterprises inflate senior staff salaries such that even government ministers have expressed grave concerns about them (which is why they are beginning to change tack now). By my ready reckoning, Mr. Bowles gets almost exactly the same total salary as the Prime Minister - about £200,000. What's more interesting to plot-out is how the managing director's salary has increased over the past few years.

Has DB not now become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution ?Has he not become blind from reality by his over-protectiveness of his Officers.Has he not been seduced by, and succumbed to the puerile mindset of the members ?Is he not losing whatever respect and control he was supposed to bring to the task.I`m afraid his task is virtually doomed !Blin o Fon

DERWYDD ?Unless someone who has the authority, a public following, the intelligence and commands respect conceives and leads a lawful sustainable solution to the Anglesey problem....this blog is nothing but vented hot air...........!Becoming Bored.

Hilarious - a website hosted by a nameless, faceless and useless excuse for an individual with supposedly 'objective' views (ha ha) complaining about "freedom of information" - you could not make it up!

"When bloggers discuss the lack of response from IOACC, is that limited to officers or are you also referring to lack of response from the elected ?"

Largely officers. In the latest case of FoIA non-response (not a refusal, a non-response, which is not one of the options available to them), it is in fact the Legal and Policy section, who really should know better than anyone, that are breaking the law, seemingly content to carry on doing so. The response to a complaint sent to them was from Lynn Ball.

To anon 11:14 fraud cases complicated?. Not all are, Section 2 Fraud Act 2006 for example - Fraud by false representation (see http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a08). From what I have seen (in respect of allegations about misuse of grants for the personal gain by certain individuals) it's not complicated at all, just a case of following an audit trail. In any event it's not the Police who decide whether to prosecute or not but the Crown Prosecution Service

I read Skidmore's blog today (Skidmore's Island) for the first time. Todays offering, Bags of Coalition, may be of interest to readers of this blog as he mentions Anglesey's longstanding culture of corruption.

Anon 20:58 - I generally allow comments which does not name (directly or obliquely) individual persons. However, I have always deleted unfounded or unsubstantiated allegations about named persons. That is why I deleted the reference to the complaint to a specific indivisual. Anyone can make complaint - the act of making a complaint does not indicate that any wrongdoing has occurred.

Having read countless blogs on the Lyn Ball planning matter, to save a visit to the files can someoneexplainthe case: Was a building put up without permission or was a building extended without permission or was something added to a project which did have permission. It would help my thinking to know.

24 HOURS A DAY COMPUTERS ASSIST IN SECURING WORLDWIDE SAFETY AND LAWFULNESS. THOSE COMPUTERS RECOGNISE THREE/FOUR LETTER DESIGNATORS, KEY WORDS AND CERTAIN PHRASES.EXAMPLES OF ALL HAVE APPEARED ON THESE PAGES.CONTRIBUOTORS, WHILST ADDING TO AND ENJOYING YOUR BLOGSPOT SHOULD BE AWARE THAT FOOLISHLY ENTERED MATTER COULD LEAD TO EXAMINATION, IDENTIFICATION AND CLOSURE WHICH WOULD BE SHAME.

Hey old shit head Druid - I am making a Freedom of Information request TO YOU to disclose all the blogs and responses you have received and subsequently censored from your own website/page. If you do not respond, and respond positively. then you are toast. Be good.

Ah, the same old degeneration into insult, threats, and total non-understanding of the law.

Freedom of Information request: the Act only applies to public bodies. This blog is not a public body. So you are incapable of even taking the time to try and understand much of anything. It's one definition of 'ignorant'.

You can find out who we are? OK. MI5 can, after a bit of work, but eejits like you can't. What is 'foolishly-entered material' in terms of the law, please? Again, so stupid you don't understand the words you yourself are using.

You are related to the Council, aren't you, threatening anonymous? We know exactly how many people are visiting this blog from there, and someone's probably keeping a count...

Anon 10:57 - I take your point, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. There is a great (and justified) anger against the council - we see it everyday in the comments on this blog. However the way to improve the council is not to indulge in hearsay - which can be easily dismissed as ranting - but to calmly and rationally point out provable incidents of wrongdoing. Accordingly I do not want to subject named Senior Officers to "trial by blog" purely on the basis of a complaint - a complaint in of itself is not indicative of guilt. If the complaint is upheld, or seems to have been acted upon incorrectly, then I will post all relevant details.

Anon 11:01 - I can assure you that I have never deleted any comments on the basis of having received veiled threats to do so - and never will. I only delete comments which (a) make unproven allegations against named persons or bodies; (b) are unduly abusive or derogatory and not conducive to stimulating further debate; and (c) in very rare cases when they don't make any sense.

I quite understand your point Druid, what occurs to me is that several posters have supplied anecdotes or instances of complaints made and information withheld for years or a person cleared of wrong-doing or let off from any reasonable punishment by the very establishment which is at the centre of the complaint.

In this case knowledge that a particular complaint has been made may be all we can hope for. At some point the weight of complaints whether they are upheld or not MAY be enough to prompt further intervention from the Assembly.

I have noticed a cull of postings here, postings that are written by the Real Welsh Nationalists Army are deleted, posts that are demanding help for Human Rights Abuses and lack of support by Councillors disappear too, I thought this was open to all?

Much of the frustration and anger stems from the lack of duty of care demonstrated when services are accessed, and especially when things go wrong and complaints are made. Complainants feel they are not taken seriously and meet with dismissive attitudes. In much the same way as FOI requests meet with dimissal. The Ombudsman cannot deal with Duty of Care because that is a matter for the courts. Most people who access Council Services cannot afford to take the route of the civil courts and therefore have no means of address. As a consequence the checks and balances that should, in a civilised society, be available from the grassroots are simply absent.

As for censorship, abusive and derogatory comments: Before we ask Druid to be the grown-up we should ask the frustrated and "no-brains" to grow up and show a bit of self-restraint, and to think about what they want to say before they post.

I think Mr Bowles has done us all a favour - at least we can see with some transparency just how much of a farce our council officers are - yes yet another descent into back biting bickering and mud slingingWhat i would like to know is who was the legal "expert" that drafted the contract that commited the council to keeping something in confidence when there was a legal obligation for them to publish that "something" if requested to - this isn't rocket science - more a case of that paradox "common sense"

ISLE OF ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCILMinutes of the meeting held on 4th March 2010.

" The Leader of the Council wishes to make the following announcement" :-

"There have been recent examples where some members appear to have their finger on the self destruction button".

"For example. Councillor Barrie Durkin, having raised LEGITIMATE ISSUES with the Managing Director, Mr David Bowles, not satisfied with the course of action that followed the investigation of his complaints, distributed to all members a letter which in MY OPINION was libellous". HIS OPINION INDEED!

Well, I have no inside knowledge, but looking from the outside, the behaviour of many (but not all) senior staff at the Council seems to be as bad, if not worse than, that of some of the elected members. Maybe the councillors have proper grievances that aren't being addressed properly, just like complaints to the council by the public are not?

Time to dissolve Anglesey Council, get rid of the over-paid, self back-patting Masonic senior staff and let those 'lower down' do their jobs properly. That office in Llangefni is more like Royston Vasey village every day, honestly! 'Oooh, new way? No corruption? Accountability? We'll have no strangers here...'

Anon 8,28.I agree.It is high time for WAG to dissolve IACC and put in a management team of trouble-shooters, and dismiss DB, who it seems is only making a complex matter much worse...just like a bull in a china shop....hopelessly clumsy ?And Yes, there are senior staff who are lazy, ineffectual, and past sell-by dates clinging on to guaranteed salaries and pensions.. who are at war with the members and vice-versa....a deeply embedded culture of mistrust and hostility permeates the whole organisation.It is a crisis in our local government.WAG WHERE ARE YOU ?????????????By one who deals with IACC daily.

In a letter sent to all Elected Members, David Bowles recently made it known that:-

" I have instructed a suitable qualified independent person who has been both a monitoring Offer and Chief Executive, and who has worked with the WAO, to carry out a peer review into the work of the Monitoring Officer" (Lynn Ball).

"That investigation is now complete and has shown that in all cases Ms Ball acted appropriately and professionally and with a high degree of competence and skill. This is consistent with Ms Ball's high standing outside of the Council and my own review of documents"

Well, if Mr Bowles and his so called suitably qualified independent person feel, that refusing to adhere to planning conditions until being forced to do so is considered appropriate.

To 09:27 Didn't one of those Councillors you mention, admit to millions of people on television. 13.11.08.

That he was a liar and had helped people get planning permission in the country side, against officers recommendations whilst a member of the Planning Committee, without declaring that he had an interest?

"I'm going to ask for a copy of the investigation in to Lynn Ball by the suitably qualified independent person under the FOIA.

What chance have I of getting it? "

Difficult to say. However, given the prominence given to it, and the justification for inaction as a result of its conclusions, I'd say there was a compelling public interest case for its release. If not, then ask more specific questions, such as: the report you mention - who was the independent person acting on behalf, and to which authority was he/she reporting?

I suspect we'll find there was no authority other than the Council, and the person was rather less than independent.

Druid, I have most of the W T W (Anglesey) programmes, at first they carry the innuendo and suggestion of wrongdoing. Then we come to the outright statements by BD, particularly when he says that one particular councillor is operating withoput planning permission and will be prosecuted....not true and nothing happened. Then he said a councillor was flouting VAT regulations and was about to be prosecuted...not true at all, nothing happened. It was all a load of hog-wash HTV gave up on BD and they gave up on the subject.

The fact is BD has not answered any questions raised on your pages, he now blogs as Anonymousand ultimately, I think, he will leave egg on all our faces before he disappears to hit upon some other ususpecting authority.

BD is a joke, he claims he has all the evidence and information but does nothing with it. It is all a, get my name in the media, publicity stunt just as we saw in Cheshire. A big baloon full of hot air, a wind bag.

Anon 12:54:- My daughter works in the Hotel and the crew have been staying since Friday.

Apparently they were interviewing an angler for two hours on Trearddur Bay beach yesterday evening. More than likely the person being interviewed wanted to remain anonymous. Do you blame them, the curtains would be twitching if the BBC turned up outside and the Cat would be out of the bag.

14.27 I guess you are also the 14.28.So are we to believe , do you think, that the BBC are to be given all the evidence, that would be a joke as the alleged matters could not then become part of a legal action by the PROPER authorities as the evidence would have been corrupted and no 'fair' trial could take place.

It really is a big joke. Sorry, those who claim to have the evidence are a joke. If they have it use it. Put up or Shut Up.

It would be good to see them proved right or wrong but nothing will be proved withour presentation of the evidence.

I have decided all that has been said about people having evidence, and ait all began with Mr. Barrie Durkin, are empty of any facts at all.

If they truly had the info they would have used it with trumpets and fanfare. Our surprise would then have been to see the guilty being tried and examined OFFICIALLY, still I guess the reason for all the publicity is that if one crumb sticks they will then claiom all the glory and I think that is what it is about, PUBLICITY.

If you really want to scratch that itch and find out what's below the septic blister then all you need to do is E-Mail: axeatax@mac.com

With regard to Panorama, they will force the reluctant Police to investigate. Would you agree, to jeopardise a criminal prosecution outweighs the prospect of it never having been investigated in the first place.

Amazingly, Internal Audit, Grants Section and Senior Council Solicitor are all unaware of the meaning and application of the following statutory provisions contained on all Empty Homes Grant Approval Notices issued by the Council.

Where an authority decide to approve an application for a grant, they shall determine:-

(b) the amount of the expenses which in their opinion are properly to be incurred in the execution of the eligible works,

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE IGNORANT AUDITORS AND SOLICITORS THIS LEGISLATION MEANS QUITE SIMPLY: GRANT OFFICIALS PERFORM A COST CONTROL EXERCISE TO DETERMINE THE COST OF THE ELIGIBLE WORKS BASED ON THE ACCEPTED TENDER AS PER PRICED SCHEDULE OF WORKS.

To 19.33 Planning Permission.Another idiot R U. The reason the (speculating) applicant got permission was because the Head Of Planning, at the meedting said "we accept this area as a cluster" and we all know clusters were ok to build in. Very odd really because at the next planning meeting another planning officer for a different application said "we do not accept this area as a cluster" now who do you think was helping the sucessful applicant.

Check your facts and if you still argue I will get the recording of the meeting downloaded for you.

Come to think of it the Lord of Slumdog City did not oppose the successful application either, now that is very odd but then he did not opposethe other one at Penrhyn Point either, more odd.

IOACC are going to get stuffed in court at the taxpayer's expense for not having a clue about their own grant policy.

When IOACC are forced to admit that officials do determine the 'eligible expense' then it will indicate that someone within IOACC prepared a falsified financial statement to negate Mr Pierce's Accountant's findings subsequent to him factually disproving three in-depth Internal Audit investigations.

Statistically the odds on the late appearing, unsigned, undated and unprofessional looking financial statement being authentic is a massive 6,245,007 to 1.

Please note, the financial statement emerged at the same time Internal Audit advised the Accountant the file was with the department under investigation. When the Accountant later asked the auditors where the statement came from they refused to answer and told the Accountant they are unwilling to discuss the case any further.

U KNOW WHO - Your question: When an application is accepted, how is the amount to be paid calculated and to whom does the money go?

Grant payment is measured against executed items of expenditure shown on the Priced Schedule of Works . Work is measured on-site by grant inspectors when a request for payment is made by the builder.

When an agent is involved, the builder furnishes the agent with an invoice, the agent then inspects and measures the work and prepares a payment certificate which he attaches to the original invoice and submits to the grant section.

Grant Officials then inspect the property and measure the work against the payment amount shown on the Invoice and payment certificate.

A simple example - Empty Homes Grant is approved in the sum of £4,000 to instal 10 identical double glazed window units. The builder installs 5 units and decides to issue a stage payment invoice for £2,000. Grant Official's inspect the property and verify 5 windows have been fitted and this represents 50% of the total cost calculated at £2,000 which is simply 50% of £4,000.

Grant is normally paid direct to the agent or builder, however, it is possible for the applicant to receive the grant provided the builder and Council agree.

In essence, grant officers calculate grant payment in accordance with executed work measured by site inspections.

DRUID,How many angry, oft-incoherent,vociferous bloggers here are prepared and able to come to a public platform to air their grievances in an articulate, persuasive and intelligent way..not many I guess, if any.Your blog has graet potential for the improvement of Anglesey, and IACC, but regrettably has been hijacked by too many with idle time on their hands ?Blin o Fon.

"Your blog has graet potential for the improvement of Anglesey, and IACC, but regrettably has been hijacked by too many with idle time on their hands ?"

I don't think it's a matter of too much idle time. It's a matter of not using that time, and we can always make time to deal with IOACC's inadequacies, in a focused way.

Last night's Channel 4 offering was interesting in that, ultimately, it showed that the people are often better at running facilities than so-called 'authorities' (which are often anything but). If we can figure out a faster, smarter, better way of getting funding directly to where it's needed, and not having a whopping top-slice taken out of it for 'admin' purposes, then we might be on to a winner.

But who's going to promote this idea at the WAG? It seems all these desk fliers ever do is keep the status quo, because anything new is too much like sticking their necks out.

How about an open forum where anyone can have an account and suggest ideas, arguments and costings.

Maybe have a voting system to choose schemes or ideas.

If your idea is taken forward, some sort of payment will be given. And you will be acknowledged. The idea isn't to let those already employed to do the job have an easy time and take unworthy credit for.

Lots of people have half and hour a day to spare, a couple of thousand of them (OK, hundred) thinking and contributing will come up with better ideas than 10 or 20 committee members or one of these dreadful partnerships. They just don't think things through.

Forget hiring £1K a day consultants - have you seen the crap they have come up with? And they don't give the money back if they are shown to be wrong.

You only have to look at the proposal for spending 95% of the entire grant aid on an office for the grant organisation in Llangefni to see how far the rot has spread.

When an agent is involved and deals directly with the builder on behalf of the applicant, then it's possible for them to collude to defraud the applicant by simply overcharging or portraying different contract values. It is also possible for the agent to defraud the applicant without colluding with the builder, by misrepresenting financial data to the applicant.

The builder could agree with the agent to undertake the work for say £50,000 but the paperwork given to the applicant portrays a contract value of £100,000. When grants are involved the agent can be paid direct by the Council and pocket the money since the builder agreed to do it for half the actual cost which has already been paid in full by the applicants grant excess cost.

Quite simply - If you gave someone £20 for grocery shopping, you would be unaware if short changed unless you refer to the receipt and without a receipt you will just have to take their word for it.

When They began to cut back on spending on people with disabilities I wrote to the head of social services and asked for a break down of the savings which these measures would bring in and I asked for a break down of transport and subsistance costs for councillors in the past year.

Teambuilding for IOACC is a good idea, (see Auditors report).What is important is that it be GOOD teambuilding and not just a day out jolly.There are a number of facilitators/trainers based on Ynys Mon and in Gwynedd who work with the Times 100 top companies at national and international level and have an excellent track record (otherwise they wouldn't still be in business after 25 years).Surely far better to use local consultants who are aware of the issues and have a reputable track record, than to use consultants from out of the area. At the very least it keeps the money in circulation locally .

I know of a village on Ynys Mon where (from memory) over £100,000 has been spent on 'consultancy' with sweet FA to show for it on the ground.

@ 13:45Nah - go-cart racing is a 'jolly'A good way to build a team is to collectively examine each indivduals attitudes and beliefs towards the job in hand and reach a consensus understanding about how to do the job. Tis is as a pre-requisite - they don't all have to agree with each others opinions just understand and respect where the others are coming from - just like on this thread - oh ... and lead by example too.

Good teambuilding involves collectively examining, understanding and respecting each individuals attitudes and beliefs about the job in hand and reaching agreement on how to go about getting it (the job) done.

The team don't have to agree with each others opinions as long as they can get the job done.(Just like on this thread ;-)oh ... and of course good leadership by example always helps.

Team building? You don't need that to understand that (a) they work for the public (b) they are paid for by the public (c) they should respect the public and, ultimately (d) the public have had enough of this dysfunctional, failed organisation.

I agree the councillors are financed by our money, that is what most are there for, plus the bit of bunce on the side.

There have been son many blogs about the (actually) useless Barrie Durkin, hot air and farts I think.

I rwad a blog about the sewage on the streets of Benllech and went to see if it was true. At 7 a.m. today it was pouring don the pavement near the Co-Op and I was told in the shops it has been like that day after day for months. Mr Durkin seems to be spending his life stirring up the shit instead of dealing with it.

Cllr Durkin was elected to represent the residents of his Constituency at the Council, on Council matters and nothing else.

If he Choose's to take other matters up on behalf his Constituents, which he often does, that's all the better.

What he's not there for, is to be abused. We suppose the next thing we'll see is abuse and complaints from people because he won't jump up to wipe their sniffling noses.

If you are concerned with the allowances Cllr Durkin gets, all you need to do is look on the Council's web site, its all there to see.

Having refused to accept a rise, Cllr Durkin receives less annual basic allowance that any other councillor. and by not claiming his mileage allowance, he is on average saving the council tax payer around another £3,000 per annum, totalling some £5,000 per annum savings of the public purse.

To Councillor Durkin,Re your 15.031. This is NO I repeat not in my constituency. It reminds me of a joke too long to repeat in full but ends up with the sentence ' in America women have babies out of their backsides (I changed the word), when challenged the reply was "well only that far away".

2. Perhaps if you were in Benllech, your consituency a little more often, you would have broght this to the attention of those concerned a little sooner sir.

3. Was it not your engaged brain sir, which printed on the election leaflet "I will hold surgeries in Benllech every week?" please let us in on the secret location.

Help me please anon 17th May 18.33 and 19.33I have never looked at sites like Utube, Twitter and had never heard of ed Tube. I managed to find RedTube today but could not fin the CONFESSIONS you said were on Red Tube how do I find it, I suppose if my grandchildren were here they could show me!

How many more lunatic ranting must we endure such as the spurious garbage of 22:19 .

With such anti Durkin views, you'd think the spineless twirp would put his name to it. That way we could see whether he was actually one of Cllr Durkin's constituents, I doubt it very much,. Just someone full of venomous shit

To all those above little bloggers who use bad language to put me down, Barrie Durkin put countless "IN TOUCH" newsletters through my door or posted them around Benllech. Mr. Durkin carried the banner for matters all over the island so his concerns were and are much wider the 'his constituency' . To the question "how would Mr. Durkin know there was a leaking pipe", because the sewage was running for more than six metres down the pavement and could be seen by anyone. As Mr. Durkin is so aware and expressive of matters concerning Benllech he can not have failed to see the sewage. Yes, I do stand corrected about it being on another councillors 'patch' but it was Mr. Durkin I voted for, never again!) not Mr. Williams. As it happens I know Councillor Williams had brought this leak to the attention of those concerned. If I lived on Mr. William's side I would vote for him, he is a good man, a good councillor, he is from the area, he lives within his constituency, he seems content to live in his constituency and hopefully he will not, like councillor Durkin move firteen miles away out of the county.

What IS in councillor Durkin's constituency is the land at Penrhyn Point but though he was very quick to defend himself about the sewage, he has not made any comment to concern shown on these pages about his lack of attention to that matter, indeed he seemed very content to let it 'slide by' now I wonder why that is?

I fully support the 08.22 writer. I too am totally cheesed off with the (not so wonderful) Mr Durkin. Mr Durkin seems to spend his life attacking people, at first I thought he was picking out the odd rotten apple but he has obviously been at it for years. I have never seen one word of praise from him about someone who has done good things for our community and there are so many people who spend their lives doing good things. Mr. Durkin's perfect world would be the one he occupied alone and I wish he would go off and fint it.

Hey Barrie, I like your (anon) 13.17, as you seem to be hell bent on abusing those who voted for you, like my neighbour 08.20 you will not get mine again, seems you not only have trouible with mouth, you can not control your typing finger either

Back to my 22.10 addressed to 17th May 18.33 and 19.33So many seem to come on this site, say things are going to happen but they do not happen.If video has been made available can you help me find it please.

grandad, I thought initially that Redtube was some sort of obscure political "joke" however it's even worse than that - if you put Redtube into your search engine (eg Google) you will find it is the Home of Porn. yet another indication of the level of poor taste humour shown by some posters.

To your well informed 18.12 this my deaest is your overture...I have been accused of many things in my very limited life but can assure you I am not the gentleman you talk of so often and if I were the very Ex Councillor with whom you seem to have such a facination, are you Gay? you might say "Nice Tits Councillor" but obviously in this instance the olny Tit is YOU.

I think the world is going to collapse under the weight of the "Its foing to be this", "When so and so gets on Youtube Redtube or perhaps the London Tube. Whedn the evidence gets shown, when the SC people, when MI5 whe Mr D presents his folders. It is all a load of old tosh isn't boys? The REAL STORY has not broken yet and will you lovers of the man get one very big surprise, talk about Redtube, you aint seen nothing yet folks, "call that a Redtube, THIS is a REDTUBE you wait